To put a size to the danger, Forbes reports that there were 62 incidents known to the FAA in 2022.

Adding parachutes for passengers has been discussed before; it would be a significant expense and far from saving lives, it would endanger them in new and exciting ways.

@Cadence I'm aware of most of those concerns however I strongly disagree it would endanger people. When a plane crashes you have almost zero chance of survival so as long as your chance of a successful parachute is greater than 0 it is reducing danger not adding it. 358 people died from commercial plane crashes in 2022 and 0 people have died from plane related battery fires. So if a parachute saves even 1 out of 358 it is 100% more effective than battery regulations. It's also far more expensive to modify billions of batteries than supply ~100k parachutes.

@jesse_b the chance of a novice surviving a parachute jump from a commercial airliner (which are not designed as a parachute platform and don’t have ejection seats) is also essentially zero. Also, most crashes happen on take off or landing when you don’t have the time or altitude to deploy a parachute.

Even a highly trained military cadre of a few hundred people can only parachute from an aircraft specifically designed for it, and in a state of readiness. The idea is absurd.

@DaleM It's really not "essentially zero" although for sure dangerous. The chance of injury is essentially 100% but any reasonable person would choose almost certain death over certain death. Anyway my point literally is that it does not make sense but that it makes significantly more sense than battery laws

@jesse_b You're welcome to read through the answers to the linked question, which include some commentary by very experienced parachutists, but the tl;dr is: there is no practical scenario where your options are jump (with a non-zero chance of survival) or crash. Any scenario where you could survive jumping, you have better odds with a forced landing, e.g. in a field or on a lake.

"modify billions of batteries" that won't happen, but what will, is improvement in their design, and gradual replacement.

@WeatherVane the batteries themselves will likely never have any integrated circuitry. They are simply cells, the devices they are installed in are where the thermal controls are and as I've said almost all devices already have thermal controls because trusted companies all get UL certifications, they are not compelled by law though.

"modify billions of batteries" were your own words.

@WeatherVane right the question is about regulating batteries.

@Cadence again we are talking about odds though. I fully agree that the odds of it making any difference are low but when compared to the odds of a battery related death (0%) even 1% is a significant improvement.

How many battery related deaths have there been, from personal devices in an aircraft that were put into the hold at the departure gate, unchecked?

@WeatherVane zero

Who tries to take car batteries or propane tanks as carry-on luggage?

@Barmar this question was not originally written about aircraft but lithium batteries in general, but you are allowed to put a car battery in your checked luggage.

Sorry, didn't see that the second paragraph was a later edit.